Maxwell Institute: Book Of Mormon Could Be "modern" And "fictional" (?)

[Senator]

Do you believe the Book of Mormon to be nonfiction?

Mostly

[Mormonmaniac]

Mostly

Why so?

[Hamilton Porter]

My position as well. Some of it is obviously tied to myth, e.g. Tower of Babel.

Edited April 1, 2015 by Hamilton Porter

[canard78]

My position as well. Some of it is obviously tied to myth, e.g. Tower of Babel.

So Brother of Jared was living in the middle of a myth? Was his vision of The Lord also a myth? The barges? At what point does Ether move from myth to history?

[Hamilton Porter]

So Brother of Jared was living in the middle of a myth? Was his vision of The Lord also a myth? The barges? At what point does Ether move from myth to history?

 

Like Norm Chow said, How the hell do I know?

[Brant Gardner]

So Brother of Jared was living in the middle of a myth? Was his vision of The Lord also a myth? The barges? At what point does Ether move from myth to history?

Unfortunately, this isn't as simple a question as it might seem. I am perfectly comfortable with a historical Jared and his brother, but a mythical Tower of Babel. Howe can that be? The answer is that I take the whole of the Book of Mormon seriously as a document and not as an infallible text. I assume that there were humans involved in its production just there was the divine behind much of the content and its preservation.

 

The important historical aspect of the story that we have from Jared, his brother, and their descendants, is that what we have is abbreviated rather than absolutely translated. When Mosiah1 translates, he sees the presence of a tower and inserts what his own textual tradition says about the tower. This is a process that occurs in the transmission of data in multiple cultures. We get the book of Ether as Ether wrote it, then as Mosiah1 translated it (abbreviated where he saw it overlapping with his brass plate stories) and then as Moroni reworked it and created his interspersed comments on the text. Finally, we have Joseph translating all of that into English. Our book of Ether is a long way from an original. Through so many human hands, many things can happen. Those kinds of things can happen in a text that claims to be scripture from the ancient world, whether it be called the Old Testament or the Book of Mormon.

[diahman]

For those still following this discussion: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/faithpromotingrumor/2015/03/a-recent-anti-mormon-essay-trying-to-understand-gees-response-part-i/

[Scott Lloyd]

For those still following this discussion: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/faithpromotingrumor/2015/03/a-recent-anti-mormon-essay-trying-to-understand-gees-response-part-i/

Who is the author of this blog?

[diahman]

He identifies himself as Yakov Ben Tov. Not sure what it means. Why does it matter?

[Scott Lloyd]

He identifies himself as Yakov Ben Tov. Not sure what it means. Why does it matter?

I think it makes a great deal of difference as it pertains to a person's credibility.

 

A message board like this one is one thing. But if you intend to publish an entire blog, you ought to have the fortitude and bravery to stand behind it with your identity.

 

Maybe it's a generational or a professional thing, but I come from a background in which it's axiomatic that a name on a published work is tantamount to a certification of authenticity and quality.

[LifeOnaPlate]

No. As a non-subscriber, I'm not allowed access and presumably won't be until next year.

Really? Digital subscriptions cost just ten bucks and includes the other two periodicals. It's a bargain.

[LifeOnaPlate]

I think it makes a great deal of difference as it pertains to a person's credibility.

 

A message board like this one is one thing. But if you intend to publish an entire blog, you ought to have the fortitude and bravery to stand behind it with your identity.

 

Maybe it's a generational or a professional thing, but I come from a background in which it's axiomatic that a name on a published work is tantamount to a certification of authenticity and quality.

It's often helpful to know the author. But it's certainly not required in order to simply assess the arguments at hand. Some of our esteemed founding fathers often published under pseudonyms.

[Robert F. Smith]

No. As a non-subscriber, I'm not allowed access and presumably won't be until next year.

Yes, and I notice that BYU Studies has adopted a similar subscription policy.

[diahman]

I think it makes a great deal of difference as it pertains to a person's credibility.

 

A message board like this one is one thing. But if you intend to publish an entire blog, you ought to have the fortitude and bravery to stand behind it with your identity.

 

Maybe it's a generational or a professional thing, but I come from a background in which it's axiomatic that a name on a published work is tantamount to a certification of authenticity and quality.

 

It's just a blog post, not a published article. And given the way in which some of Gee's associates operate, I think Yakov is probably better remaining anonymous: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/faithpromotingrumor/2014/05/wheat-and-tares-apologetics-a-case-study/

 

Besides, not knowing the author's background compels the reader to pay more attention to his argument, which, in this case, is quite a good argument.

[Robert F. Smith]

He identifies himself as Yakov Ben Tov. Not sure what it means. Why does it matter?

Maybe it's code for something like James Goodly.  People often use pseudonyms when they do not want to be held accountable for what they say.  It might become publicly humiliating.  We should note, that unlike John Gee, many of those issuing their opinions on Patheos do so pseudonymously.

[Robert F. Smith]

It's just a blog post, not a published article. And given the way in which some of Gee's associates operate, I think Yakov is probably better remaining anonymous: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/faithpromotingrumor/2014/05/wheat-and-tares-apologetics-a-case-study/

 

Besides, not knowing the author's background compels the reader to pay more attention to his argument, which, in this case, is quite a good argument.

Sounds like sophistry and defensive poppycock to me, and perhaps even a little paranoid:  Who are these horrible associates of Gee, and what will they do to anyone identified by name?  Has anyone ever heard about "the courage of one's convictions"?  Or are we just a bunch of cowardly, hollow men who disappear not with a bang, but a whimper?

[canard78]

Like Norm Chow said, How the hell do I know?

You mean you've never even thought through the implications?

[canard78]

Unfortunately, this isn't as simple a question as it might seem. I am perfectly comfortable with a historical Jared and his brother, but a mythical Tower of Babel. Howe can that be? The answer is that I take the whole of the Book of Mormon seriously as a document and not as an infallible text. I assume that there were humans involved in its production just there was the divine behind much of the content and its preservation.

The important historical aspect of the story that we have from Jared, his brother, and their descendants, is that what we have is abbreviated rather than absolutely translated. When Mosiah1 translates, he sees the presence of a tower and inserts what his own textual tradition says about the tower. This is a process that occurs in the transmission of data in multiple cultures. We get the book of Ether as Ether wrote it, then as Mosiah1 translated it (abbreviated where he saw it overlapping with his brass plate stories) and then as Moroni reworked it and created his interspersed comments on the text. Finally, we have Joseph translating all of that into English. Our book of Ether is a long way from an original. Through so many human hands, many things can happen. Those kinds of things can happen in a text that claims to be scripture from the ancient world, whether it be called the Old Testament or the Book of Mormon.

So Jared was at some other tower? And his language was at risk of being confounded... But not at the Tower of Babel?

36 Then Jared said unto his brother: Cry again unto the Lord, and it may be that he will turn away his anger from them who are our friends, that he confound not their language.

Ether 1:36

So basically if there's anything in the Book of Mormon that doesn't fit with external history you just shrug it off and chalk it up to myth? Edited April 2, 2015 by canard78

[Brant Gardner]

So basically if there's anything in the Book of Mormon that doesn't fit with external history you just shrug it off and chalk it up to myth?

That certainly doesn't sound like a description of my position, or even much of a summary of what I wrote. Having a story appear in a book held to be scripture does not automatically make the story representative of an event in time. I think that there is something important in the story of Balaam's *** that is more important (and certainly more true) than the *** speaking. I also have done enough work in the way an interpreter/translator's stories can modify and recast the original story. I see no problem with asserting that scripture arrives to us through human hands even though communicating divine messages.

[omni]

That certainly doesn't sound like a description of my position, or even much of a summary of what I wrote. Having a story appear in a book held to be scripture does not automatically make the story representative of an event in time. I think that there is something important in the story of Balaam's *** that is more important (and certainly more true) than the *** speaking. I also have done enough work in the way an interpreter/translator's stories can modify and recast the original story. I see no problem with asserting that scripture arrives to us through human hands even though communicating divine messages.

I think this can be a healthy way to approach much of our scripture, however I rarely (if ever) see this championed by church leaders. Sure there's the token example that always gets brought up about Adam's rib, but the worldwide flood, Tower of Babel, Adam and Eve as the first humans, etc., these are all taught as literal events.

[diahman]

Sounds like sophistry and defensive poppycock to me, and perhaps even a little paranoid:  Who are these horrible associates of Gee, and what will they do to anyone identified by name?  Has anyone ever heard about "the courage of one's convictions"?  Or are we just a bunch of cowardly, hollow men who disappear not with a bang, but a whimper?

 

Read the thread if you'd like to know what they do those who identify themselves by name. Coincidentally, are you the "Bob Smith" that participated in that thread? Here's Bob's participation: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/faithpromotingrumor/2014/05/wheat-and-tares-apologetics-a-case-study/#comment-1390305871

 

For another relevant example of the kind of tactics employed see here: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/faithpromotingrumor/2014/12/hamblins-misreading/

[Kevin Christensen]

Nibley, in Leaders and Managers:

"For the qualities of leadership are the same in all fields, the leader being simply the one who sets the highest example; and to do that and open the way to greater light and knowledge, the leader must break the mold."

http://publications.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1051

Sometimes it's a matter of who you think of as the church leaders in which area of thought, competence, and area of stewardship.

Who are the leading thinkers in the church? Is it worth paying attention to them? Are those who have the spiritual gift of administration the same as those who have the gifts of wisdom and knowledge?

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

[omni]

Nibley, in Leaders and Managers:

"For the qualities of leadership are the same in all fields, the leader being simply the one who sets the highest example; and to do that and open the way to greater light and knowledge, the leader must break the mold."

http://publications.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1051

Sometimes it's a matter of who you think of as the church leaders in which area of thought, competence, and area of stewardship.

Who are the leading thinkers in the church? Is it worth paying attention to them? Are those who have the spiritual gift of administration the same as those who have the gifts of wisdom and knowledge?

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

While the leading thinkers in the church can often provide valuable insight, they have no more authority to interpret scripture or declare doctrine on a church-wide basis than I do. That ability lies with the prophet, and as far as I can tell, they generally take a literalist view of scripture.

[Gray]

I think this can be a healthy way to approach much of our scripture, however I rarely (if ever) see this championed by church leaders. Sure there's the token example that always gets brought up about Adam's rib, but the worldwide flood, Tower of Babel, Adam and Eve as the first humans, etc., these are all taught as literal events.

 

It's true that literalism is usually the approach taken in devotional venues, but I don't think that invalidates believing scholars who take a more realistic approach to historicity. 

[Senator]

Why so?

 

Its a chronic mental condition as the result of a schizophrenic dance between faith, hope, reason and skepticism.